James Bond In Skyfall - Part 3

[Call Me Darkman]

Yeah, he did.

 

[regwec]

Bond parents were Scots and Swiss, but that had absolutely no bearing on the way that he was written. Back in the post war years most British nationals referred to themselves as "British" rather than English/Scottish/Welsh, anyway.

 

[ChickenScratch]

I had this idea awhile back but it was shot down.
What if we had James Bond novels but with Moore's James Bond? Or another set of James Bond novels with Brosnan's Bond.

I know they're basically the same character but each book could be divided into the era they made movies in
Connery-60's
Moore 70's
Dalton 80's
Brosnan- 90's
Craig- 00's
It could be like Doctor Who novels

This is where being bigger Bond fan/collector than most pays off. I have the two books written by Christopher Woods as novelizations of movies based upon books by Ian that they are nothing alike. Christopher Wood's James Bond In The Spy Who Loved me (which including the change of Horror to Jaws) and Christopher Wood's James Bond in Moonraker (becauase that movie had one thing in common with the original book, the name off the villain.

The Wood books are not bad, just not good and kind of a necessity after the movies had nothing to do with the books they were supposedly based upon.

 

[DyeLorean]

Update on my Bond marathon!
Saw Dr No and From Russia With Love.
I liked the second one more. You can clearly see Connery a lot more comfortable with the character. More realistic in tone.
Goldfinger tonight.

 

[Homer J. Fong]

From Russia with Love is definitely a much better movie; everything that Dr. No does well, From Russia with Love does better. Don't get too attached to the realistic tone, though.

 

[Dark Raven]

FRWL is almost like a Hitchcock movie. I wish Hitchcock made a Bond film.

 

[Doctor Jones]

Yeah, because Goldfinger kind of departs from that. I prefer the more realistic take of Dr. No and FRWL and CR and GE. Though it should still be enjoyable. Even though TSWLM isn't as realistic, it makes up for in immense enjoyment.

 

[Doctor Jones]

FRWL is almost like a Hitchcock movie. I wish Hitchcock made a Bond film.

I can see what you mean. It is the most well made Bond film.

 

[DyeLorean]

Yes yes, I definetely got that Hitchcockian vibe in the train.

 

[ChickenScratch]

Bond parents were Scots and Swiss, but that had absolutely no bearing on the way that he was written. Back in the post war years most British nationals referred to themselves as "British" rather than English/Scottish/Welsh, anyway.

How did I miss this? Yes, Ian took some influence from the movies in filling holes he didn't already fill. Does Bond's Brit/Swiss genes come into play? No. We find out in FRWL, a book that Bond doesn't show up in till half way, the first half being Russians planning an elaborate trap and studying files on him. His ancestry is presented to us as it is to the Russians, in a file, dry info. Never does it actually enter into actionable plot. Much like Ian adopting the roll neck Sea Island blue sweaters and crepe soled sneakers from the movies for Bond to wear in the books too (when not in a suit). He was as always, just with a cute bit of trivia added.

If people want to bring up how Ian copied the movies in adding blah blah blah Connery. Well, the only real story involving Bond's Swiss side of the family is his visit to his two gay uncles (his mom's brothers) in Corsica in the Young Bond Novel by Higson "Blood Fever." Or his Aunt Charmain's thick Scott accent ... or May's for that matter.

The movies are fun, but lets not over estimate their influence on the orginal source. Considering Ian added one throw away line in FRWL as a wink and nod to Sean.

Also, a happy belated 91st b-day to Mr James Bond of M16, Royal Navy, Universal Exports, Overseas Development Group, and SPECTRE.

 

[Doctor Jones]

Well... Ian adding his Scottish background because of Connery is fact. And it's because of his performance that impressed him so he added it, as little of a reference as may be, it still stands. That says a lot.

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

Yeah, he was so impressed with Connery he made his heritage Scottish. And it once again shows that it doesn't matter how close to the book you are, it's what's on screen. For the creator and author of the character to be so impressed as to make a change to his own character says a lot.

Well said and quite true.

 

[The Batman]

eh, from the way you expressed your opinion...



...Raiden was quite right to take that meaning. When you set up your opinion with the claim that you are a fan of the 'Bond character' from the novels, that tells us you consider 'Bond' to be the character from the books, so because you immediately after say Connery and Moore were the best 'Bonds', being in the same sentence, putting them in direct relation to that first claim, it says that you consider them closest to being the 'Bond' from the books.
The last sentence, in this context, the way you have expressed it, tells us that you think there are differences between the novel and cinema versions, to the extent there is a seperate cinema version, and their's are best, because they are closer to the book.

Just sayin'. If you were to write that up in an essay, your examiner would take it the way Raiden did too.

Sorry, haha, it was just bugging me that you corrected him when he was right. In effect, that was exactly what you were saying.

Uh...sorry, but no.

My statement established two things.

That I've read the books and find moore/connery to be the best. You and Raiden misinterepreted and made assumptions off of that. I didnt even say I was necessarily a fan of the books, just that I've read them. Your interpretation of my last sentence dosent make sense to me. I clearly say they define the Cinematic version, which contradicts your idea that i made a distinction just to say moore/connery was the best because they were closer to the book.

 

[ChickenScratch]

Yes it does say a lot. Ian didn't think up a background for the character's parents up on till that point (not like they are characters in there anyways). Nor has his past played much of a role since. It's a nice tribute to Sean. It in no way means Ian was there cherry picking ideas from the movies of an already fully formed character. 5 books in he references the actor playing the role, no big deal.

In John Gardner's Scorpious Bond watches The Untouchables on a flight to North Carolina and comments on how the old guy (Sean Connery) is his favorite actor. James Bond is also a big fan of spy novels and reads many of Ian's contemporaries including LeCarre and his favorite is Kingsley Amis (Ian's best friend who wrote a Bond novel after his death under the pen name Robert Markham, who was rumored to have edited TMWTGG) which is like being a fan of one of your creators.

 

[Dark Raven]

How did I miss this? Yes, Ian took some influence from the movies in filling holes he didn't already fill. Does Bond's Brit/Swiss genes come into play? No. We find out in FRWL, a book that Bond doesn't show up in till half way, the first half being Russians planning an elaborate trap and studying files on him. His ancestry is presented to us as it is to the Russians, in a file, dry info. Never does it actually enter into actionable plot. Much like Ian adopting the roll neck Sea Island blue sweaters and crepe soled sneakers from the movies for Bond to wear in the books too (when not in a suit). He was as always, just with a cute bit of trivia added.

If people want to bring up how Ian copied the movies in adding blah blah blah Connery. Well, the only real story involving Bond's Swiss side of the family is his visit to his two gay uncles (his mom's brothers) in Corsica in the Young Bond Novel by Higson "Blood Fever." Or his Aunt Charmain's thick Scott accent ... or May's for that matter.

The movies are fun, but lets not over estimate their influence on the orginal source. Considering Ian added one throw away line in FRWL as a wink and nod to Sean.

Also, a happy belated 91st b-day to Mr James Bond of M16, Royal Navy, Universal Exports, Overseas Development Group, and SPECTRE.

Whatever holes Ian didn't fill, Bond filled them himself.

 

[Hunter Rider]

Yeah, because Goldfinger kind of departs from that. I prefer the more realistic take of Dr. No and FRWL and CR and GE. Though it should still be enjoyable. Even though TSWLM isn't as realistic, it makes up for in immense enjoyment.

I wouldn't say Dr. No or Goldeneye were any more realistic than Goldfinger.

 

[Dark Raven]

Goldfinger used to be my favourite Bond movie, but it's now From Russia With Love. There's so much more style in that film, and it has a fantastic score as well.

What would've made it slightly more perfect would've been some actual scenes in Russia, and maybe having the Aston Martin DB5 in that movie instead of Goldfinger, a la the FRWL game:

[YT]Up8NbH7Fr9E[/YT]

 

[Hunter Rider]

 

[The Batman]

rewatching goldfinger, it seems like connery barely did anything substantial. he didnt even save the day, technically. the only effective thing he did was seduce galore.

 

[jmc]

As far as I recall, the general public found Dalton to be very boring as Bond, I recall reading an argument about that on these very boards, and one of the more articulate posters on here argued that point very well, pointing out the fact that the public didn't take to him positively like the other Bonds(excluding Lazenby).

He was considered boring coz he was a contrast to Roger Moore. It doesn't surprise me that he wasn't looked upon favorably considering Moore was Bond for a lot of people for 12-13 years, that's a long time to get comfortable with the lighthearted version of Bond that he brought to the table. Had Dalton's Bond happened after Connery I'm betting he would have been looked upon in better light.

 

[Thebumwhowalks]

Uh...sorry, but no.

My statement established two things.

That I've read the books and find moore/connery to be the best. You and Raiden misinterepreted and made assumptions off of that. I didnt even say I was necessarily a fan of the books, just that I've read them. Your interpretation of my last sentence dosent make sense to me. I clearly say they define the Cinematic version, which contradicts your idea that i made a distinction just to say moore/connery was the best because they were closer to the book.

No, you expressed yourself in a really wonky way, aye, you could interpret what you said both ways, but with the way you expressed yourself, it was more sensible to assume the interpretation that Raiden did.
Like, you say you never described yourself as a fan of the books, but you did say 'books' in the plural, so you obviously enjoyed them , so went on to read more right? So, *in effect*, you did say you were a fan of the books.
and that is what I am getting at, in the way you express yourself, and the way you arrange your information, if you are not specificlaly clear on your meaning, other interpretations can arise that are different from what you intend to express.
and given that you arranged your information in a non-specific way, and your wonky way of expressing your opinion, there was nothing wrong with Raiden's interpretation.

 

[Thebumwhowalks]

He was considered boring coz he was a contrast to Roger Moore. It doesn't surprise me that he wasn't looked upon favorably considering Moore was Bond for a lot of people for 12-13 years, that's a long time to get comfortable with the lighthearted version of Bond that he brought to the table. Had Dalton's Bond happened after Connery I'm betting he would have been looked upon in better light.

I don't agree, after A View to a Kill, I think folk were ready for a fresh take on Bond, Dalton just didn't click with the public. I tried watching TLD a couple of months ago, first time since it was released on video(and i didn't like it back then either), and it did not hold my interest.
The two movies he was in, and his take on the character, were just not that great, it just didn't click for reasons of artistic quality, not some kind of cultural misplacing in the timeline.

 

[jmc]

I've talked to Bond fans older than me regarding this subject before coz I was too young to know about it but from what they've told me Roger Moore was loved by a lot of people, maybe not by book Bond diehards, but mainstream folks did, no-one was looking for a fresh take except those involved with the series. Enter Dalton less than 2 years after with a completely different Bond, of course he was never going to be looked at favourbly, he wasn't the same Bond that people had been watching for the last 12 or so years. The Living Daylights is one of the better Bond movies, better than anything Moore did, but was released at the wrong time for Dalton to get a favourable response, because the contrast in styles was so vast what was needed was a 4-5 year break like what they did between Brosnan and Craig.

 

[Thebumwhowalks]

I've talked to Bond fans older than me regarding this subject before coz I was too young to know about it but from what they've told me Roger Moore was loved by a lot of people, maybe not by book Bond diehards, but mainstream folks did, no-one was looking for a fresh take except those involved with the series. Enter Dalton less than 2 years after with a completely different Bond, of course he was never going to be looked at favourbly, he wasn't the same Bond that people had been watching for the last 12 or so years. The Living Daylights is one of the better Bond movies, better than anything Moore did, but was released at the wrong time for Dalton to get a favourable response, because the contrast in styles was so vast what was needed was a 4-5 year break like what they did between Brosnan and Craig.

That is speculation on your part, Moore did some poor Bond movies, but I'd say his debut LALD was far more entertaining than TLD.
If TLD had been an exciting Bond film, the public would have forgotten about Moore over the course of the film, as it was, it is a little dull.

 

[jmc]

Dude, I just told you I got this info from older Bond fans that I've spoken to. Take it or leave it, I don't really care.